We have read the INS Proposed Rule concerning Certification of
Designated Outside Entities (DOE) to Take Fingerprints, published
in the Federal Register, Vol. 60, No. 93, on May 15, 1995. We
would like to take this opportunity to make some comments to this
rule, as provided by law.

First, we applaud INS' efforts to establish procedures to institute
control and oversight of the fingerprinting process. As the INS is
well aware, the business of fingerprinting aliens for immigration
benefits has ballooned in direct correlation to the decisions by
local INS offices to discontinue fingerprinting applicants. This
in turn has created a pool of small businesses, usually located
within close physical proximity to an immigration office, which
derive a profit from providing information to the INS by charging
the applicants for their services.

Some of these new business are producing quality, reliable
fingerprints at reasonable prices. Other business are doing
substandard work at outrageous prices. Since the INS relies on the
information given by applicants to determine if they are in fact
eligible for immigration benefits, it is imperative that the
information be accurate and therefore reliable. Furthermore, we
believe it is critical that applicants not be abused by private
businesses in their efforts to provide the required documentation
as part of the process to apply for benefits they are legally and
properly entitled to receive.

In the interest of ensuring that the INS and the public will
receive appropriate information, services and prices from DOEs
taking fingerprints, we would like to suggest some additional
requirements to be included as part of your rulemaking in this
matter.

1. Prohibit Violation of Section 292 to Qualify for Designation

We suggest that Section 103.2(e)(6)(i) be amended to include a
provision which would require the DOE to sign a statement saying it
will abide by Service Regulations in Section 292, in addition to
Section 103. Section 292 of the regulations of the INS prohibit
anyone who is not an attorney or accredited representative to be
authorized to practice before the INS by giving advice in
connection with any immigration matter. We suggest that DOE
applicants be required to agree to refrain from the unauthorized
practice of law, as defined by 292, in order to be qualified to
receive DOE certification. This requirement could be included as
one of the questions on the Application for Certification, Form I-850.

2. Clarify Purpose of DOE Designation

We suggest that Section 103.2(e)(6)(xiii) be amended to provide
that the Attestation (Form I-850A) given to the fingerprinting
applicant state that the DOE designation does not qualify the DOE
to give advise on eligibility of immigration benefits. This would
presumably discourage DOE's of violations of 292 and also inform
the public as to the limited purpose of a DOE designation, that is
to regulate the entities who charge for services in taking
fingerprints.

3. Obtain List of Other Services Offered by the DOE Applicant

We suggest that Section 103.2(e)(8) be amended to require the DOE
to give a description of the types of immigration services it
intends to offer to applicants, in addition to the taking of
fingerprints. For example, DOE applicants should list in the
Application for Certification if they will also be charging for
taking pictures, providing translations, notarizing signatures, and
completing immigration forms. This information will assist the INS
in determining if the DOE applicant is exceeding the certification
authority being given and is engaging in a violation of 292.

4. Make Public Record of Application of DOE Applicant

We suggest that Section 103.2(e)(8) be amended to require the DOE
Application of a certified applicant be made available to the
public upon written request to the local District Director. This
requirement will allow competing DOEs to supervise the activities
and employees of other DOEs with whom they are in competition.
This will result in a sort of self-policing mechanism for DOEs.

5. Confirm Free Retakes on Applicants' Fee Receipt

We suggest Section 103.2(e)(6)(vii) be amended to include a
statement on the fee receipt that the applicant's prints will be
retaken for free should the DOE initially fail to take legible and
classifiable prints. Printing this notice on the fee receipt for
payment of the service will allow the applicants the maximum
opportunity to be notified of their right for free reprints. In
addition, this proviso will encourage the DOE to take acceptable
prints the first time the effort is made.

6. Bond Requirement

We suggest Section 103.2(e)(6) be amended to include the
requirement that a $500 bond be paid by the DOE to the INS prior to
receiving certification. This provision would be similar to the
bond required of a construction contractor for obtaining a state
license to perform services. The purpose of the bond would be to
assure the public of an ability to recover costs should the work of
the DOE provider be inadequate. Should the INS receive complaints
from applicants of the DOE's failure to retake free prints, or
complain of repeated poor retakes, the INS would not only be able
to revoke the DOE's certification but would also be able to provide
money to the public to be able to purchase classifiable prints
elsewhere.

We hope these comments will receive serious consideration before
publication of the final rules regarding the certification of
fingerprint providers. Our suggestions have been made in the
interest of securing quality service to INS while protecting the
public from unscrupulous fingerprint providers.

If there are any questions, we would be happy to respond or provide
greater clarification of the points made in this letter. Thank you
for your attention.